Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday August 03, 2014 @08:30AM
from the who's-got-the-best-guns dept.

Taco Cowboy writes The Israel — Hamas conflict in Gaza is not only about bombs, missiles, bullets, but also about cyberwarfare, battles of the mind over social media, smart underground tunnels and cloud-based missile launching systems. The tunnels that Hamas has dug deep beneath Gaza are embedded with high tech gadgets, courtesy of Qatar, which has funded Hamas with billions to equipped their tunnels with intelligent sensors which are networked to control centers enabling the command and control staff to quickly notify operatives nearby that IDF units are advancing inside a certain tunnel, allowing for rapid deployment of attack units and the setting up of bobby traps inside the tunnel.

In addition, Hamas has automated its rocket firing system using networked, cloud-based launching software provided by Qatar which can set off a rocket from any distance, and set them to go off at a specific time, using timers. "Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken," said Aviad Dadon, a senior cyber-security adviser at several Israeli government ministries. While Doha is allowing Hamas to use its technology to fight Israel, it's their own cyber-security the leaders of Qatar are worried about. For the Qataris, the war between Israel and Hamas is a proving ground to see how their investments in cyber systems have paid of — Qatar is very worried that one of its Gulf rivals — specifically Saudi Arabia — will use technology to attack it, and Qatar spends a great deal of money each year on shoring up its cyber-technology.

Just another article that makes big claims yet shockingly thin on any details. How are we on/. meant to have any discussion on this when there's nothing tech-worthy - just some questionable allegations.

If Hamas were funded with billions, they would not be limited to firing 500-Euro worth DIY rockets [wikipedia.org]... But then again the article is from "timesofisrael.com", which I suspect is a strong believer in the idea that the entire world is conspiring to help Hamas bring terror over Israel, and whoever thinks otherwise is obviously promoting antisemitism. I thought/. was not about promoting a particular political agenda - even if it is thrown a thin "tech" veil...

Well, the entire article is based off of verbatim quotes from "Aviad Dadon of Israeli cyber-security firm AdoreGroup", transcribed and translated from an interview on Israel Radio. It's not at all clear where Dadon gets his information. So, if you trust him, the article is reliable. If not, then no. The article may be correct, but it isn't exactly serious investigative journalism.

Three different kinds of tunnels existed beneath Gaza, said Eado Hecht, an Israeli defence analyst specialising in underground warfare: smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Egypt; defensive tunnels inside Gaza, used for command centres and weapons storage; and --connected to the defensive tunnels --offensive tunnels used for cross-border attacks on Israel. The military says it has located about 32 to 35 offensive tunnels, of which more than half have been destroyed, and it believes that there are around 40 in total.

The offensive tunnels have been dug by hand, as the use of machinery would risk detection. Military analysts estimate that each tunnel takes two to three years to complete, and costs millions of dollars.

Destroying the tunnels is also a painstaking operation. "This is very dangerous work," said Hecht. "Firstly, locating the tunnel entrances is very difficult; they are needles in a haystack." Remote technology does not yet exist to locate and map tunnels deep underground, he said, hence the need for troops.

Go look up the net worth of Arafat, and the other terrorist leaders. You'll quickly figure out where those billions of dollars go very quickly. And that's before they spend them on rockets from Iran...oh wait, that's probably a lie in your book right? Useful tip: Those cost upwards of 20k each, and they had 4k of them.

That year, Slashdot suddenly became political in support of the Kerry campaign, rolling out a progressive "Politics dot Slashdot dot org" sub-domain and flooding users with Democratic propoganda. That was also the year that paid subscriptions (I bet you don't remember that, either) from the users dropped by two thirds, resulting in a downward spiral that results in Beta dot Slashdot dot org today, and the community fork, SoylentNews [soylentnews.org].

Before 2004 it wasn't political? Seriously, that only means that you started watching politics around that time and are a republican. Slashdot had ALWAYS been political. In 2001, it was full of rah rah go US, US sucks and Bush sucks sentiments. Before that, political flamefests were less regular, but that's because the political scene in the US was less political.

While there was always some politics, you cannot deny the explosion of it with the politics section being added. It was nothing like today until then.

Today it seems to be orchestrated today by organized factions employing sockpuppet accounts and mass moderating with convienient twists on facts that follow election cycles more than anything. It is far worse than it ever has been.

As far as I can tell, the Slashdot discussion styles always run about a year or two ahead of what happens in the more mainstream political areas. As a result, the political section being added was a symptom, not a cause.

The United States and the former Soviet Union were renowned during the Cold War for testing new warfare technology in a foreign theatre. Israeli use of US military tech has been a proving ground for decades for new ways to deliver death and destruction.

Although there's a measure of efficacy that can only be achieved in real time conflict, there's a downside.

The technology is also exposed to your enemy, theoretically allowing different defense methods to be tested.

New weapons are battle tested all the time. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that this conflict exists to test the weapons. Also, Israel has a pretty impressive domestic defense industry. A lot of latest and greatest weapons they use are home made.

That's not an article about the high tech warfare behind the Israel-Hamas conflict. It's an article about the alleged use of some pretty run-of-the-mill technology by one side (Hamas) with no reference to the actual sophisticated technology used by the other side (Israel). If the article in itself isn't necessarily so, the phrasing of the headline and the summary here is an attempt to portray this conflict as something other than the massively one-sided affair that it actually is. It's a whitewash pure and simple. I wish both sides would just stop killing each other but seriously, "cloud-based launching software"? So Hamas can launch unguided rockets without having to stand next to them. Sounds pretty nasty compared to sophisticated air defence, MBTs, total air superiority and massed artillery.

And claiming that "desperation" justifies behaving like thugs, and launching those unguided POS bottle rockets by remote control at civilians is somehow justified... Just got to love those good old fashioned Islamic moral values...

You make it sound like Israel's response to the murders was to start randomly bombing people. Israel's response to the kidnapping was to start making arrests and restricting access to Gaza as they searched for the kidnapped teenagers. Hamas started firing rockets. Israel retaliated with air strikes. By the time the bodies were found, the conflict was already in motion.

"Anyone who thinks they have dozens of people sitting next to launchers firing rockets each time there is a barrage is mistaken,"

So let me see if I understand what you're saying: A bunch of guys who are at war set up a rocket launcher with a timer, then go away leaving it unguarded so that anyone can walk up to it and, oh, I don't know, shut it off, blow it up, steal it, etc.?

If that thing is what you claim, would anyone in their right mind continue to live anywhere near it?I don't care about jobs, businesses, family, etc., if something like that is anywhere near me I get myself and family the f**k away from it as fast as I can. Anyone who doesn't is just plain nuts.

The summary says Qatar is worried of being attacked and overtaken in a technological arms race, by Saudi Arabia. Really? Since when?

From TFA:

Politics is behind Qatar’s willingness to pay for Hamas’ cyber-system. The Saudis believe that Qatar is behind efforts to unseat the Saudi royal family — using social media and the Al-Jazeera satellite channel — and Riyadh earlier this year recalled its ambassador to Doha, after he refused to pledge that it would “not interfere in others’ internal affairs,” according to Eli Aviad, who formerly headed Israel’s Economic Liaison office in Qatar.

I'd like something a little more substantive to back this up. The paragraph concludes:

While they are primarily interested in cyber self-defense, Aviad said, they are also interested in assisting their Muslim Brotherhood allies — and hence their willingness to fund the Hamas terror program. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sorry, I gotta take any news value coming from TFA with a chunk of salt.

There's a lady walking down the beach who finds a bottle, rubs it, and out pops a genie. "I know how this goes," she exclaims, "I get three wishes."

"I'm afraid not, young lady. Due to inflationary constraints, you will only be afforded a single wish."

Without hesitation, the woman pulls out a map of the Middle East to show the previously incarcerated genie. "I would like for there to be peace in this part of the World."

The Genie pauses to scratch his chin. "These people have been at war for a very long time. I'm a highly skilled genie, but I'm not sure even I could pull that off. Is there something else I could do for you?"

"Okay then," replies the young maiden, "I would like you to find me the man of my dreams. He must be sweet, honorable, enjoy shopping with me, never lie or cheat, be a perfect father for our beautiful children, and rather spend time with me than do anything else. He should be brave and sensitive, love my cat..."

The sole source of information for the article is "Aviad Dadon of Israeli cyber-security firm AdoreGroup." Is that an independent source?

Of course. As we have seen here in the US, heads of intelligence organizations never lie. Even more so, heads of a corporation with a financial interest in conflict. Nope, they would never lie in a case like that to justify to a country's citizens a government giving it tons of money. Nope, it's totally 100% reliable.

There are no independent sources. I suppose we could imagine a super news organization that ran its own spy network. But on this planet, media get their information, especially on military matters, from the interested parties.

Sure, I'm willing to believe that Hamas has some technology behind what they're doing, but it surely can't be anywhere near as advanced as what the IDF has. The Israel / Hamas conflict is about as mismatched as it would be if the US went to war with Bolivia. I'm sure if that happened, some people in the American press would point out that the Bolivians have rifles, while forgetting to mention that we have nuclear subs and airfraft carriers.

yes its probably more cost-effective to make more crude rockets than to try and engage in a tech arms race with Israel - there also the q how tech savvy is the average Hamas fighter and would it make sense to risk those you do have at the front line when you can get any activist to carry a few rockets and fire them off via a command wire.

And if that Bolivia was between Mexico and the US, and kept on sending rockets, suicide bombers, and kidnappers, America would quickly get completely fed up and blast 'em to smithereens. Instead of 1700 dead there'd be 17,000. Or more. Arguments over news reporting would be a footnote.

I do feel that the Arabs are getting a raw deal in relation to the west and Israel there needs to be some really deep thinking going on.
For example it is just dandy to have a timer and an auto launch ability on these small missiles but where does it lead? If one finds that most often the hostiles are not near the launch site the launch site will still be hit hard and probably some other place, perhaps randomly selected, in hope of getting the point across. Naturally hatred will result and

Hamas can't even power their social media campaign (i.e. their lifeblood) continuously, but we're supposed to believe they can coordinate rocket fire over the same internet while also deploying Aperture science into their tunnels?

Some of the offices in the building I work in have "high-tech sensors" that tell them when the door opens inward by ringing a little bell. They're dangling pieces of metal that hit a momentary switch tied to a doorbell ringer. Are those the "high-tech" devices described in such detail in the article?

I know that will be bad for my karma but I find this stories' title disgusting.

Indeed there is a war between Israel and Hamas, but at the same time, there is the genocide of Palestinian People by Israel. Most of the ones who die are not Hamas fighters. Their only crime was to live in a territory Israel considers its own. Reducing the conflict to the fight between Israel and Hamas is a petty trick to hide the genocide.

If this discussion is going to descend in to 'Hamas as terrorists' then we should recognise the use of the word 'terrorism' as an adjective used to vilify one side and make an opposing side seem legitimate. The American revolutionaries were also considered terrorists as was Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. However, I don’t support Hamas’ use of violence to further their desire for a sovereign state. In fact, the state of Israel itself was founded a ‘terrorist organisation’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
"The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period." - well that's great. But you realise Hamas are firing because they live in an occupation and under siege? They'll stop fighting when Israel pursues a 2-state strategy with sincerity. Israel has ignored its commitment to a 2-state solution in 2009. In 2012 it made agreements for a ceasefire but began laying siege to Gaza and throughout 2013 largely ignored any attempts of establishing peace (note: during this period Hamas had not killed or kidnapped a single Israeli civilian).
In April this year, the talks collapsed as Abbas sought Palestinian membership in 15 UN conventions and reconciled with Hamas, and Israel made a surprise announcement of plans for 700 new settlements and refused to free a last batch of Palestinian prisoners which included Israeli-Arab citizens. That was April this year, before any of this conflict. Israel made clear it doesn't want Palestinians to pursue a non-violent route to statehood either.
There you have it, if Israel wants peace it must offer the Palestinians what they have a right to - a fully functioning state with control over its own future. Don't call them Hamas terrorists for pursuing what they're entitled to and have been brutally denied even when seeking it peacefully.

The first wide spread use of the word "terrorist" in mass-media afaik is in German second world war propaganda to describe the Soviet partisans on the Eastern front.Every European with an inkling of historical knowledge is going to look at any state calling any group "terrorists" with at least a modicum of suspicion.

As an aside, does anyone else see some similarities in the current situation in the West-bank/Gaza and the Jewish uprising in the ghetto of Warsaw?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

All true, I was thinking more of general tactics, the extensive tunneling ( although I think Warsaw had a more extensive sewer system ), the "nothing to lose"strategy, fighting at impossible odds in a relatively small walled area etc

Gaza started as only a city. It's history is long and colorful, and smattered with conquests by many other civilizations, including Egypt, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the Asyrians, Great Britain, and many others, the list goes on, spanning about 4000 years. It wasn't until the 20th century that Gaza was officially given to the Palestinians as anything more than a mere conquered (many times over), city, and it wasn't until 1948, that a Palestinian government, was officially recognized by the world at large

Seriously? Two state solution? Refresh my memory - who is it who has *rejected* a 2-state solution repeatedly? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't Israel.

Palestinians rejected 2-state proposals in 1937 and 1947 which were *accepted* by the Jewish leadership. Why? Because the Arabs were too busy shouting that Israel had no right to exist. Then the Arab-Israeli war (1948) and the Six day war (1967), as well as a constant stream of attacks and sabotage by Palestinian militants convinced Israel that the Arabs had no real interest in negotiations or peace - in fact, Hamas' charter specifically names their objective:

'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)

In more recent years, Israel has stated its willingness to give up nearly the entirety of the lands they gained in 1967 in exchange for peaceful coexistence, but even that isn't good enough - the rockets keep falling, and the bombs keep exploding.

But yeah, given Israel's history - of both being willing to accept a 2-state solution, and defending themselves against attacks by organizations hell-bent on their destruction, I can see how you'd conclude that Israel is the one who is dead-set on not accepting a 2-state solution.

But please, bring up settlements now. Let's talk about the settlements that Israel evacuated in the Sinai and Gaza when it withdrew from those territories. Do you really think if they actually felt the Palestinian leaders were *serious* about recognizing Israel and living peacefully alongside them, that the Israeli government would - for a single second - hesitate to evacuate the other settlements as well?

Two-state solution = apartheid. Would the ANC have accepted a two-state solution in South Africa, which would only have vindicated the racist ideology of white South Africans who claimed that blacks and whites had to be separate? That's something that pro-Israel people never understand. Whenever someone says 'apartheid', they'll talk to you about the Arab minority in Israel, which completely misses the point. Apartheid, in this case, refers to the fact that, in the area that is historically known as Palestine, there is apartheid in that the goal is to have a Jewish state and a Palestinian state even though both groups believe that they have claims over the entire land.

This is why it's very different from many other conflicts: in Ukraine, for instance, you could potentially partition the land since you have a rather clear line dividing east and west over language and political views. Same in (South) Sudan for instance where you could separate majority Muslim populations from majority Christian ones. Not so much in Palestine, at least if you go back to 1946 before there were large population transfers.

If you look at population statistics from that era, you find that Palestinians outnumbered Jews virtually everywhere. If you had had a free and fair referendum and assuming that people would have voted along ethnic lines (why would Jews vote against having their own state, why would Palestinians decide that they wanted to be ruled by Jews), the Jewish state would have been the Jaffa region, period.
And that's a huge problem. The right to self-determination is not only for white people, even though it took Western countries close to 20 years to finally realize that. The Jewish people certainly had the right to go to Palestine, purchase land following willing-buyer-willing-seller principles and perhaps one day become a majority there. I believe in open borders, so I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when people claim that the fact that their ancestors may or may not have been forced to leave that area 2000 years ago means that they now have a right to exclude people who are currently living there. We all have roots somewhere in modern-day Kenya, that doesn't mean it's now okay for me to go and colonize that place. There's been invasions, etc. for thousands of years everywhere on earth and we don't go back 2000 or 3000 years to see who *really* has a claim on the land.

Terrorism refers to a specific tactic, the deliberate targeting of civilians to create fear and terror in the population rather than for a specific military objective such as the destruction of industry. If Hamas is launching rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, then they are engaging in terrorism, pure and simple. Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although some days it's pretty hard to tell that from the news. The irony is that while Israel might not be engaging i

Can you provide ANY evidence for this assertion? As evidence that you are wrong I enter this phrase from the Hamas charter: "...initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion[.]” There is more that suggests you are mistaken, do you have any evidence to support what you claim?

We don't have a good definition of "Terrorism" that is shared among us all, so the term becomes kicked around and abused. So I've stopped using it. By the way, the Hebrew word for terrorism does not involve the concept of terror or fear.

The governments involved, including the PA, have come to believe in a "Two State Solution", but Hamas does not. And Hamas is in a position to threaten the success of any 2-state plan, by taking over the West Bank, and starting another war with Israel. I believe thi

Of course, it depends on what you mean by 'recognize Israel's right to exist". If it means that the Palestinians are supposed to say that it's fine for the Israelis to keep their own separate state while they're confined to their little Bantustans, then it's no wonder that they're not so keen on doing this.
The two-state solution is literally apartheid since it involves separating the inhabitants of Palestine based on their ethnicity/religion and letting them develop separately.

I live in Israel, in an area which is inside the "green line" (i.e. - it was Israel since 1948). All around the town I live in are Arab cities, all of them also inside the green line, all of their inhabitants Israeli citizens with equal rights to me (though some missing obligations). If a two state solution is scheduled to go through (and unless "areas exchange" change that), all of those currently Israeli citizens are scheduled to remain so.

You would like to live in a world where "nation state" is a dead concept. Regardless of whether I think this is a good aim or not, a simple look at the facts will show you it is not a practical aim.

There are very few states in the world which are not "nation states". Most of those are binational states or multi-national states. They don't fare very well. In the best case end of the spectrum you have Canada and Finland, where it sort-of works, but is very far from the ideal you're trying to paint. On the wor

Canada gives you more points if you speak French. The USA requires that you speak English in order to get accepted. In fact, language is a factor for many of the countries you specify.

I will, however, concede a mistake on the immigration policy. It seems (preliminary, I'm still looking into it) that around 2005 the European union decided that's unethical, and has been forcing member states to forego those policies. Today these policies are much less evident than they were.

Is it Hamas, because the 'evil Jew' refuses to make peace? And because they were there before the Jews came? Is it the 'evil Jews", because they were there before the Ottoman Empire practically kicked them out if they didn't want to convert to Islam? At least here we know that Judaism existed first.

Just like the native american indians existed first in the US before they were fucked over by the european settlers who now rule the country and own all the land? if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.

The two state solution involves pretty much drawing the borders where they are now with the exception of Jerusalem. J

if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.

So, because they were successfully exterminated long enough ago, they lose all rights?

This conflict didn't start in Gaza. It started in the West Bank, with the murder of three teenage settlers. Then Israel accused Hamas of the murder (based on no evidence whatsoever) and proceeded to arrest hundreds of people. Only then did the conflict spread to Gaza.

The amazing thing about propagandists is that one day they'll tell us how great Gaza is and how Palestinians are all liars who want to make it sound like they have it bad (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.567496). Then the next they'll come and tell us that Gaza has been chaotic since 2005, presumable because Palestinians are too dumb for self-rule.
Plus you have to define 'pulled out completely'. It seems to me that the IDF has been reentering Gaza periodically since 2005 and that Israel still ma

Well they sure as hell let all their "leaders" steal the aid money from around the world and stuff it into Swiss banks. Oh, wait, I forget the Arafat made billions of dollars from his Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah.

Uh, yes, when Hamas fires rockets into Israel (which I think you can safely consider an act of war) Israel does "re-enter" Gaza. I suppose you'd be happy if those darned Jews just took it as victims, like the good old days. Sorry, those days are over.

You can't expect them to collaborate with their 'enemy'The only thing they can do is guerilla warfare or agree to the occupation. If they didn't have the support from the palestinian public eg: if Israel was actually civilwith these people instead of raiding them en masse and 'interrogating' their children then Hamaswouldn't exist as it is now anyway. Punishing everybody for the crimes of a few is wrong policy.

Threat the people like people, work your informantsand send special ops to the actual terrorists,

Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?

Wait a minute. Where is this summary even remotely pro-anything but technology? It's simply outlining the high tech that's being employed in this conflict, it by no means draws any conclusions of that conflict.

I personally feel the post is in just the right context for a/. article, its about technology, not about who's using it (though there's talk of who's supplied whom, but still fails to cast a good or bad tilt on it.)

Israel has said it will only stop once it has destroyed all the tunnels that the Palestinians built. That implies that even if they surrendered immediately Israel would continue to keep soldiers on the ground there until the demolition work was complete.

I also somehow doubt that Israel would lift the blockade on the area, dismantle their wall, demolish their settlements and then allow the Palestinians to live freely and prosper. The current round of fighting might end for a while but the conflict would cert

Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?

This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression. The moment Hamas stops shooting, IDF stops shooting, period. Hamas lies and has no moral honor, they betray everything, and want nothing less than to wipe other people off the face of the earth. How is that humanitarian and moral? And yet the western media doesn't portray that side of the story!

Your naivete would be cute if it wasn't for all the dead children!

Israel will not stop when Hamas stops firing rockets. I suspect Israel will stop the slaughter the moment when the Palestinians cede ownership of their natural gas fields to Israel for free. http://www.globalresearch.ca/w... [globalresearch.ca]

Also, how do you know these things about Hamas if the medias doesn't cover it? Of course the media covers Hamas's acts of terror. The part that is lacking is the fact that vast majority of Hamas's terror is aimed at Palest

Why is it our media (even this post) always seems to portray Hamas in a positive light?

Coverage I've seen usually consists of an interview with an Israeli followed by the same interview with a Palestinian... both questioned, both spew the very same tired talking points day in and day out which Interviewer is mostly disinclined to follow up on even in instances where they know or should know information provided is misleading or false.

This conflict would end the SECOND Hamas stopped their aggression.

I assume Palestinians say conflict would end the second Israeli's stop making their lives miserable.

Four teens werr kidnapped and murdered in two separate instances. First was three israeli teens then a palistimian teen. It was after the pslistimian teen was murdered that Hamas started lobbing rockets at Israel.

So either you are ignoring the facts or you are some how construing the second murder as the official state responce from Israel. In either case, you got your facts wrong.

Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?

Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.

Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?

Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.

Or, the third option - Israel knows it has all the time it needs, as it is getting all the international support it needs to continue on this path. What better form of genocide exists than one which can be argued is nothing of the sort? Just a thought.

Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?

Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.

I ache for all lives lost in this conflict. Every time I have to interrupt my daily routine (or my sleep) in order to run for shelter, every time I think about complaining about it, I know how much better I have it that my bomb shelter is an integral part of my apartment, where people in Gaza simply have none. Yes.

And none of this is an excuse to levy false accusations. This conflict, as you said, has gone on for almost a century. You arbitrarily decided to blame it all on Israel, and are using stronger and

What I wonder is, if the Palestinian have a time machine (which is the only explanation to this, as well as many other, rationalization of their actions), how come they are not rich enough to buy the allegedly pro-Israeli media?

I agree. Fundamentally, we should get out of Israel's way and let the middle-east situation play out. Russia and China could give all Arab countries weapons for free and they would still lose to the skill of Israel's military. Anyone that thinks Israel will fall to any Arab nation is delusional.

They are better methods than gas. We have explosives in powder form that can be disbursed and then detonated with huge amounts of force.

My guess to why these aren't being used has to do with both the locations of the tunnels as they go under houses on both sides and possible inteligence left behind pointing to other tunnels or future uses of them

It would suck finding heat activated poisionous gas mixtures or having houses colapse with people in them or all sorts of unknowns happening because you didn't kno